60 Md. App. 463 - Howell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2013
18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · Massachusetts v. Sheppard · People v. Defore · Lawrence v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Maryland, of course, has no exclusionary rule. Following the lead of Judge Cardozo in People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13 , 150 N.E. 585 (1926), Maryland is one of the approximately thirty jurisdictions that affirmatively rejected the exclusionary rule. Lawrence v. State, 103 Md. 17 , 63 A. 96 (1906); Meisinger v. State, 155 Md. 195 , 141 A. 536 (1928); Lambert v. State, 196 Md. 57 , 75 A.2d 327 (1950); In Re Special Investigation No. 228, supra, 54 Md.App. [149] at 160, 458 A.2d 820 [1983]. The Maryland Legislature enacted a limited exclusionary rule, known as the Bouse Act, by Chapter 194 of the Acts of 1929. It specifically exempted all felonies and even certain of the more serious misdemeanors. In 1973, moreover, Maryland repealed even the limited statutory exclusion called for by the Bouse Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Maryland, of course, has no exclusionary rule. Following the lead of Judge Cardozo in People v. Defore[, 242 N.Y. 13 , 150 N.E. 585 ] (1926), Maryland is one of the approximately thirty jurisdictions that affirmatively rejected the exclusionary rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Darryl P.“The exclusionary rule of Mapp , by definition, can reach down to the states only when there is a violation of federal constitutional law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beckwith v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.